DEVASAHAYAN SOMAN Vs. JAI INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of the arrears of salary amounting to Saudi riyal 2,11,750 equivalent to Indian rs. 6,98,775/- with interest.

(2.) The Plaintiff is an Indian inhabitant. The defendant No. 1 is the recruiting agent for defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is a public Limited Company incorporated in Saudi arabia.

(3.) Pursuant to the advertisement in local newspapers on 31st March, 1983 issued by defendant No. l the plaintiff applied to the defendant No. 2 through defendant No. 1 for the job with defendant No. 2 in Saudi Arabia. The plaintiff was accordingly interviewed by the general Manager Michael Sommer for and on behalf of the Defendants and he was selected for being employed with the defendant No. 1 as Assistant Manager at a monthly remuneration of Saudi Riyal 3000 excluding residential accommodation and other perquisites on 29th June, 1983. Initially the defendant No. 1 got executed at Bombay an ostensible agreement for Saudi Riyal 1100 for the job of driver. The plaintiff alleges that it was however agreed and understood that the plaintiff would be provided a monthly remuneration of 3000 Saudi Riyals Plus residential accommodation and other perquisites. By letter dated 5th April, 1983 the defendant No. 1 confirmed the plaintiff's appointment as Assistant Manager on the monthly remuneration of Saudi Riyal 3000. The plaintiff then left for Saudi Arabia on 30th june, 1983. On 1st July, 1983 Abdulla A. Zahid, President and Managing Director of defendant No. 2 assigned to the plaintiff the post of Assistant Manager. The defendant No. 2 inter alia was dealing in renting out cars for tourists as well as for locals. On 1st July, 1983, the plaintiff was given the certificate authorising him to handle missing cars and vehicles and also certifying that he had been appointed as assistant Manager in the defendant No. 2 company. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant No. 2 raised his monthly remuneration to Saudi Riyals 3500 by reason of his excellant performance and the remuneration was paid at that rate for the month of July, 1983. The plaintiff, however, alleges that from the month of August, 1983, he was not paid anything towards monthly salary or remuneration, although he continued to serve the defendant No. 2 in the hope that he would be paid his legitimate dues. The plaintiff alleges that he carried out his duties, as assigned, sincerely and efficiently. The plaintiff alleges that in anticipation of getting legitimate dues he continued to work for defendant No. 2 for about 16 months. He repeatedly requested the defendant No. 2 to pay all the arrears of his salary and perquisites, but he was not paid.